*/
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proposed adopting the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against barristers charged with professional misconduct.
The current standard of proof used is the criminal standard which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so as to be sure’. But the BSB is seeking views on whether its regulatory arrangements should be changed to allow the civil standard of proof, ‘on the balance of probabilities’ or ‘more likely than not’ to be applied.
The change would bring it in line with other professional regulators, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the General Medical Council.
Commenting on the proposal, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Francis FitzGibbon QC said: ‘The issue is not an academic one. Anyone who has been involved with Bar disciplinary proceedings knows that the process is agonising and the stakes are high.’
He said: ‘We risk our professional integrity at our peril, and we should not expect the public to respect us if we appear soft on serious misconduct.’
The criminal standard, he said, puts misconduct on a par with actual crime, and marks how seriously it is taken. But, he said: ‘It’s reasonable to ask why so high a standard is needed and why the balance of probabilities does not suffice.’
The consultation, Review of the Standard of Proof Applied in Professional Misconduct Proceedings, closes on 21 July.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proposed adopting the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against barristers charged with professional misconduct.
The current standard of proof used is the criminal standard which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so as to be sure’. But the BSB is seeking views on whether its regulatory arrangements should be changed to allow the civil standard of proof, ‘on the balance of probabilities’ or ‘more likely than not’ to be applied.
The change would bring it in line with other professional regulators, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the General Medical Council.
Commenting on the proposal, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Francis FitzGibbon QC said: ‘The issue is not an academic one. Anyone who has been involved with Bar disciplinary proceedings knows that the process is agonising and the stakes are high.’
He said: ‘We risk our professional integrity at our peril, and we should not expect the public to respect us if we appear soft on serious misconduct.’
The criminal standard, he said, puts misconduct on a par with actual crime, and marks how seriously it is taken. But, he said: ‘It’s reasonable to ask why so high a standard is needed and why the balance of probabilities does not suffice.’
The consultation, Review of the Standard of Proof Applied in Professional Misconduct Proceedings, closes on 21 July.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
